I. Introduction

The primary purpose of this workshop is to promote the active integration of human rights in humanitarian action through partnership between non-governmental, intergovernmental and United Nations organizations in discussing the development of a core human rights training module for humanitarian actors. The project is one in a series of initiatives of the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights.2

The current work of the IASC and its various working groups is closely related to the United Nations Reform Programme initiated in 1997 by the Secretary General, which set out the advancement of human rights and the need to integrate human rights into the activities of all United Nations (UN) agencies and missions as a central part of the Programme.

A review of human rights training materials undertaken for this workshop confirms that humanitarian organisations now see the rights of programme participants and others with whom they interact as integral to the fulfilment of their mission to relieve suffering. The material reflects the view that the whole range of human rights is of concern to all and that the question is not if humanitarians should be involved in the promotion and protection of rights, but how.

It is now acknowledged that a powerful synergistic effect can be achieved through the wider engagement of humanitarian relief workers and others in human rights, but effective engagement requires several levels of understanding. Each actor must acquire some knowledge of relevant standards, principles and law; must consider individual and organisational roles in promoting and protecting human rights; and must achieve some understanding of complementarity (the idea that mutually reinforcing roles can be played by a variety of organisations in promoting and protecting rights.)

While, as noted, some excellent tools have been developed to address these issues, they vary considerably in terms of content, focus, and approach. And while some humanitarian and human rights organisations have been able to devote resources to the development of relevant training modules/programmes, others lack such resources but have expressed a need for basic training in human rights. Thus, some observers have suggested there remains a need for basic human rights training for humanitarian actors notwithstanding the value of specialised training tailored to the missions and mandates of specific organisations.

This workshop represents a unique opportunity to not only state our intent to promote respect for international law and to assert that intent with one voice; but to consider together the need to act through a critical management task: the development of a tool that could (in turn) assist humanitarians facing reality in the field to seize opportunities to promote and protect human rights3.

II. The Work of the Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights and its Relevance to Mutual Goals of the Humanitarian and Human Rights Community

The Reference Group on Humanitarian Action and Human Rights is composed of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), UNICEF (the United Nations Children's Fund), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the World Food Programme, the World Health Organisation (WHO), the International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA); and as standing invitee, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

The focus of the Reference Group is to implement projects related to humanitarian action and human rights under the overall guidance of the IASC and to develop new, innovative projects that enhance the integration of human rights into humanitarian action. The Reference Group has the 'added value' of serving as a forum for information sharing through its specific projects, including this workshop on human rights training for humanitarian actors.

The Reference Group's objectives for 2001 included several relevant projects:

• Completion of a study of field level activities to promote and protect international human rights law, international humanitarian law and refugee law. Entitled Growing the Sheltering Tree: Protecting Rights through Humanitarian Action, this compendium of practices will be published by the end of 2001. A dissemination programme will ensure linkage to other humanitarian activities, especially through training programmes.
• Production of a document entitled "Frequently Asked Questions on International Humanitarian, Human Rights and Refugee Law". This document is near completion and will be disseminated with Growing the Sheltering Tree and other materials.
• The streamlining/mainstreaming of human rights into the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP). Upon the invitation of the Sub-Working Group on the CAP, the Reference Group assisted in the review and development of the human rights aspects of the CAP training materials and guidelines (specifically, in the development of the CAP training module, Humanitarian Principles and Human Rights).
• The development of the IASC Statement on the Protection of Human Rights through Humanitarian Action. The purpose of this statement is to provide a general, principled framework for IASC members on the interconnectedness of human rights and humanitarian action.
• Other task-oriented, country-specific and thematic issues.

Another specific objective of the Reference Group, as directed by the IASC, relates directly to this workshop and is seen as an essential complementary activity of the Reference Group:

• The development of a database of existing training materials [which could aid in the] creation of a generic training module, if found necessary.

III. The Workshop on the Development of Human Rights Training for Humanitarian Actors: Goal and Objectives

The overall goal of this two-day workshop is to consider the issue of human rights training for humanitarian actors, with a view to further contributing to the promotion and protection of human rights through humanitarian activities. The workshop will serve as a forum for a variety of humanitarian and human rights actors to discuss experiences and make recommendations relating to the development and core content of a training module that would both build upon and provide a linkage to relevant existing materials, projects and programmes.

The three primary objectives of the workshop, then, are to:

1. within the context of the growing partnership among humanitarian, development and human rights organisations, discuss the development of a core training module that would complement (not substitute for) other initiatives focused on the nexus between human rights and humanitarian relief/development work;

2. serve as a means to document the relevant experience of those working in complex emergencies, and to take note of existing materials and approaches developed by these organisations and others;

3. seek consensus through in-depth consultation between humanitarian and human rights organizations on the goals and objectives of a core human rights training module for humanitarian actors.

Specific objectives include the following tasks (in addition to those identified by the participants during the workshop):

• Identification of primary target audience(s) for core training, (i.e. headquarters and field staff, field staff only, field staff and program participants, etc.) and rationale for selecting the target audience(s);
• Determination of the specific goals of a core training module (what, in basic terms, do humanitarian relief workers need to know?);
• Identification of challenges in humanitarian-human rights issues that must be addressed in the development of a core module [See Challenges, below];
• Determination of critical core components (content) of the proposed training module including, among other issues:

1. which legal sources and standards, principles, treaties, declarations etc. should be included and to what depth they should be covered (what is the minimum content required);

2. the linkage to international humanitarian law, refugee law, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, and humanitarian standards such as the Sphere Project Minimum Standards and the Code of Conduct for humanitarian organisations;

3. the linkage to sectoral humanitarian work, i.e. water and sanitation, nutrition, food aid, shelter and site planning, and medical services;

4. the inclusion and depth of coverage of specific human rights problems such as trafficking; lack of or denial of access to health care, food and shelter; extra-judicial killings; child soldiers; sexual assault; slavery and forced labour; arbitrary arrest and detention, etc.;

5. the inclusion of cross-cutting themes such as capacity-building, development, use of a participatory approach, gender, poverty, forms of discrimination, root causes, etc.;

6. how to approach the discussion of the concepts of 'rights-based programming' and the 'rights-based approach';

7. arriving at the 'right mix' of information about the law and the practical application of the law;

8. the inclusion of information relating to complementarity 4 : i.e. working with organisations with protection mandates (ICRC, UNHCR and in some cases, peacekeepers); working with the military (national; international; rebel and other non-state armed groups); working with other humanitarian and human rights organisations; working with civil society (i.e. media, clergy, civic organisations, etc.);

• ,li Prioritisation of content of a training module;
• Inclusion of professional standards and codes of conduct (do humanitarian actors have obligations relating to human rights-i.e. if and how to report violations [see Challenges, below], how to treat victims of abuse, etc.?)
• Identification of dissemination methodologies that could link the training in an effective manner to other training initiatives (i.e. training developed by non-governmental organisations such as Medecins sans Frontieres and CARE; interagency programmes such as the ReachOut Project, the module on the protection of IDPs developed by the Norwegian Refugee Council, the CAP module on humanitarian principles and human rights; organisation-specific training such as UNICEF's Humanitarian Principles training and the UN Development Programme (UNDP) Training Manual on Human Rights and Sustainable Development, etc.;
• Determining the appropriate length of basic training (minimum? maximum?). Should several versions of the module (short, mid- and longer version) be created? Could 'add-on' sessions and/or linkages to more specialised or focused training be developed?;
• Identification of specific challenges to the development of a training module that will "reach" humanitarian actors both in the psychological and literal sense (the latter referring to effective methods of ensuring that such a training module would be presented and used in the field);
• Discussion/identification of possible responses to the above challenges;
• Development of pedagogical methodology (i.e. visual aids, role plays, case studies, etc.) that will:

1. identify, train and effectively utilise the skills of trainers (who are the trainers, who trains them and how will they disseminate the training?);

2. aid in communicating the concept that human rights are not only relevant but integral to the context and daily practice of humanitarian actors, and

3. inspire humanitarian actors to achieve the integration of human rights in practice.

• Sharing of information with participants about effective training experiences and caveats;
• Development of a database of training modules, workshops, guidelines etc. relevant to human rights concerns and humanitarian work through the contribution of materials or notification of the participants of relevant material that is accessible to field staff .

Challenges: Twenty Questions

The following list of challenges is presented for the review of workshop participants. It is anticipated that workshop participants might discuss the exclusion of some issues and provide recommendations regarding the inclusion of others in a core training module.

The identified challenges can be categorized into the following four clusters, although one question seems particularly relevant to the discussion of humanitarian action and human rights given its popularity as a conceptual framework within the humanitarian community (Question1).

1. Should the training define with more clarity what is meant by 'rights-based programming' or a 'rights-based approach'?

Cluster I: Core Content: Finding the Right Mix between Presentation of Relevant Law and Practical Activities to Promote and Protect Rights

2. What balance should be struck in a core training module between knowledge of relevant human rights law/declarations etc. and practical methodologies that promote and protect human rights?

3. How might a core human rights training module link appropriately to information relating to other bodies of law or principles relating to protection, including international humanitarian law, refugee law, the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and humanitarian principles?

4. Should core human rights training identify as a critical issue access to affected populations and methods of securing and maintaining access?

5. What might constitute appropriate and adequate coverage of specific human rights problems or needs in a core training module (part of core content issue)?

6. How might a core human rights training module adequately address the critical issue of monitoring and reporting? Specifically,

• Should the module address the need to ensure that there is a monitoring and reporting system in place?
• Should the module identify ways in which those without a specific monitoring and reporting mandate might contribute to the gathering of credible and reliable information?
• Can a common approach to the monitoring and reporting of human rights conditions and violations be achieved through the use and/or development of shared reporting mechanisms (i.e. the use of a common human rights incident report form, MOUs, etc.)?
• What are the minimum skills every humanitarian must have in order to ensure that she/he recognises and reports to the appropriate person or body violations of human rights without endangering lives?
• Should it be emphasised that training alone is not a sufficient approach to the integration of human rights into humanitarian activities and that the initiation of practical activities to promote and protect rights is in fact the primary goal of the training?

7. Should the training emphasise that monitoring and reporting is not an end in itself; that both analysis of collected data and an 'action link' are necessary components of an effective response to human rights problems and needs? (In other words, response must include the development of programmes using a 'right-based approach', 'protection lens', etc. based on analysis of who is at risk, patterns of abuse, and so on.);

Cluster II: Ensuring the Inclusion of and Respect for Persons in Need of Protection (including Human Rights Defenders and other affected persons and groups)

8. As a training management issue, how might training engage programme participants ('beneficiaries') and others, especially representatives of marginalised groups, human rights defenders (defined broadly) etc.?

9. How might a core training module include the use of capacity/coping and vulnerability analyses, disaggregated data and other relevant information that may assist in the identification of the strengths and needs of persons or groups at high risk?

10. How might the training address the inclusion of programme participants ('beneficiaries') and others in the development of programmes and activities relating to the promotion and protection of rights?

11. How might core human rights training treat the need for confidentiality (i.e. ensure that confidentiality is understood and respected)?

12. How might core human rights training ensure that the approach to victims/survivors, witnesses and others affected by human rights violations is respectful and appropriate?

Cluster III: Avoiding Pitfalls, Identifying and Addressing Protection Gaps

13. Should/how might a core training module address the need to evaluate the potential negative effects of programmes and policies upon human rights (i.e. through inadvertent support of the perpetrators of violations, ill-conceived agreements, or the undermining of the work of other organisations such as national NGOs.) Should/how might the training module address how organisations can engage in ways that will not confer legitimacy on state or non-state actors whose actions indicate deliberate and repeated disrespect for the law?

14. Should training seek to identify means to identify gaps in the protection of rights at the field level?

1. How might a core training module raise the issue of accountability and an end to impunity (a type of protection gap) and what are the implications for humanitarians who may witness violations of human rights/international humanitarian law/refugee law in the field? Should a core training module include discussion of reporting mechanisms and information about relevant judicial bodies or processes (i.e. thematic mechanisms, ad hoc tribunals, truth commissions, the International Criminal Court, etc. and how to access/reach these bodies?)

2. Should a core training module identify links to information about staff security for both expatriate and national staff?

Cluster IV: Achieving Complementarity

3. Should training address methods to develop complementarity at the field level and to clarify organisational roles in the promotion and protection of rights?

4. Should core human rights training suggest ways to reduce 'territorial issues' relating to mandate through exploration of means to achieve complementarity?

5. Should training note that there is a need for 'backstopping' by headquarters of NGOs, intergovernmental organisations (including, and perhaps especially, those with protection mandates and human rights organisations) to assist humanitarian relief workers in addressing the many issues and dilemmas they face in the field? Put another way, should the training address the relationship between humanitarian and human rights organisations and suggests ways to strengthen this relationship?

6. Should training address how to proceed in the field when despite the presence of many organisations in a complex emergency, few seem to interpret their mandates as inclusive of the responsibility to promote and protect the rights of people at risk? (Also relates to specific protection gaps).

1This paper was prepared for discussion purposes by Diane Paul, an independent consultant, and does not necessarily reflect the views of the OHCHR or ICVA or its members.

2The Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) represents the humanitarian community at large through both its UN and non-UN components. It was created by the United Nations in 1992 with the goal of strengthening coordination in emergency situations. The IASC, chaired by the Emergency Relief Coordinator, is comprised of heads of the major UN humanitarian and development agencies and includes NGO consortia, the International Committee of the Red Cross and the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. The work of the Reference Group on Human Rights and Humanitarian Action is explained in Part. II.

3This concept is partially derived from a paper by Nicholas Leader, "Humanitarian Principles in Practice: a Critical Review," Overseas Development Institute, an RRN [Relief and Rehabilitation Network] Discussion Paper (London: 2000).

4For a full discussion of the concept of complementarity, see 'The Challenges of Complementarity' in Strengthening Protection in War: A Search for Professional Standards (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross) pages 28-36, May 2001. The concept is based on discussions between a variety of humanitarian and human rights actors over a series of workshops on protection sponsored by ICRC. Interpretations of the term include complementarity as coordination, as cooperation, as mandate-based action, and as division of labour. Modes of action for operational complementarity are explored in the chapter.